Greb cant beat hagler

[brownpimp88]

Just as any science.....boxing has evolved.

Greb's prehistoric ass would have been Merc'd by Hagler in two or three rounds. Hagler was a new schooler with an old school mentality.

This is something kid achilles will never get, there's no point in discussing. I have seen clips of various old fighters from the old days. The way they defended themselves, they way they kept thier hands down all the time and the way they threw punches would have led to them getting thier asses kicked in today's standards. Kid achs proly thinks bob cousy will take tracy mcgrady to school, right?

[Zerwas1]

Thank you for that brilliant and well thought out statement Zerwas1. He fought a long time ago, so he'd lose. Genius.

Well then i explain my thoughts.

Whenever i watch videos from fighters from the really old times, I see mostly guys boxing with very bad boxing abilities. Boxrec says he started boxing 1913 and we all acknowledge that boxing at that time wasn't that far technically. But hey lets say he isn't that bad, then he still has a very big disadvantage in his physical talent.

Medecin was poor, knowledge about how and how much to train was poor, nutrition was poor and so on....there is a long list.

So lets say he was the best at his time and the 4 guys next to him, gave him a tough fight, so why should the best 5 guys from the last 20 years not beat him???

I'm sure a basketball/Hockey/Baseball team from 1915 wouldn't do that good against a team from today.

SO WHY ARE THE GUYS WHO WERE BORN IN 18XX ALWAYS SO OVERHYPED???

Edit: Thanks to Run with Knives and Brownpimp for their intellect!

[brownpimp88]

I completely agree, hagler and leonard were properly trained boxers with long amatuer careers. Who the **** did dempsey get trained by? For god's sake, the first guy that dempsey fought without an 0-0 record he lost to. Dempsey fought like 51/66 guys, in todays standards that are flat out bums with very ****ty records. He only had 15 fights aginst guys that can qualify as C level or better. His biggest heavyweight wins are willard, firpo and sharkey, thats supposed to make him top 20 p4p of all times, good luck. Many boxer have surpassed him.

[Kid Achilles]

Properly trained? They were trained to the best abilitites of the trainers of their time for 15 and then 12 round fights, but put them in Greb's era with those smaller gloves, and the length of those bouts, and the rules of the times, and everything changes.

Today's boxers are not better, they are just different. Would Greb be at a disadvantage with the big gloves, short fights, and more merciful refs? Sure, but who cares, I don't really consider head to head matchups really when judging how great someone is. I judge the skills and ability they displayed when compared to their contemporaries and from that I can ascertain their level of natural talent. Paramount to skill and talent though is accomplishments. Who they fought, and who they beat. Greb has one of the best resumes I've ever seen and fought quality guys numerous times to prove his wins weren't flukes. Many of these guys were bigger than he was.

Head to head matches are so open to speculation that anyone who thinks he knows for sure who'd win in such a fight is full of himself. But accomplishments are something we can actually discuss with a level of objectivity.

Who wins in Hagler vs. Greb. No idea, but I can promise you Hagler would have the advantage in his era and Greb in his own.

[brownpimp88]

Properly trained? They were trained to the best abilitites of the trainers of their time for 15 and then 12 round fights, but put them in Greb's era with those smaller gloves, and the length of those bouts, and the rules of the times, and everything changes.

Today's boxers are not better, they are just different. Would Greb be at a disadvantage with the big gloves, short fights, and more merciful refs? Sure, but who cares, I don't really consider head to head matchups really when judging how great someone is. I judge the skills and ability they displayed when compared to their contemporaries and from that I can ascertain their level of natural talent. Paramount to skill and talent though is accomplishments. Who they fought, and who they beat. Greb has one of the best resumes I've ever seen and fought quality guys numerous times to prove his wins weren't flukes. Many of these guys were bigger than he was.

Head to head matches are so open to speculation that anyone who thinks he knows for sure who'd win in such a fight is full of himself. But accomplishments are something we can actually discuss with a level of objectivity.

Who wins in Hagler vs. Greb. No idea, but I can promise you Hagler would have the advantage in his era and Greb in his own.

Wille Pep would last in today's era cuz he was "technically" great, not great when it came to his rep and legacy. You prolly think i hate them cuz thier white, thats far from true. I even acknowledge the fact that jack johnson and joe louis wouldnt have been great in today's era too. Larry Holmes said it very clearly, i have seen the way joe louis takes his stance, the way he defends punches etc, he was great for his era and is top 10 of all times. However, in head to head comparisons he isnt #2.

[Kid Achilles]

I'm not arguing about head to head! How do you even do a head to head matchup with guys in two different eras, which era do you decided to hold such a fantasy fight in, the modern era? Why? It makes no sense, it's just as unfair to put Greb in the 80's as it is to put Hagler in the 1910's and 1920's.

Greb can sure as hell beat Hagler at the turn of the century, using rules that he fought under. Why do you assume in these fantasy fights we're going by the most recent era's rules?

[brownpimp88]

I'm not arguing about head to head! How do you even do a head to head matchup with guys in two different eras, which era do you decided to hold such a fantasy fight in, the modern era? Why? It makes no sense, it's just as unfair to put Greb in the 80's as it is to put Hagler in the 1910's and 1920's.

Greb can sure as hell beat Hagler at the turn of the century, using rules that he fought under. Why do you assume in these fantasy fights we're going by the most recent era's rules?

Larry Holmes would have outboxed dempsey in any era, you know it. Just swallow ur pride for once.

[grayfist]

walker started out as a WELTERWEIGHT, he was undisputed welterweight champ at the age of 21, undisputed middlweight champ after greb died. mickey walker is an all time great. also, u don't see heart like he had, or the chilean tht fought louis - both men getting up all those times. u can see back then winning a title - THE title, becasue there only was ONE for each weight, actually meant something.

the clip of greb "shadowboxing" looks like he was ****ing around, if u look close he's laughing as he's jumping around and stuff. obviously, he though it was a joke, but u can tell a couple things about greb, his hands were fast and he could move like emmanuel augustus - very unorthodox. it would be very hard for anyone to fight someone like that. if i remember, hagler, lost to someone with exactly this style - ever heard of a guy named ray leonard, kids?

also, the greb - walker title fight was described in the newspaper, it's probably even on the internet. anyway, i've actually seen the description of this fight and it said that from rounds 6 on greb really beat walker up

I wrote at some length and in a series about Greb in the thread about Michael Spinks last viewed here a week ago, I think.I have never any occassion to see footages of Greb fighting. I however do know that he has such a spectacular record that it is close to impossible for him to be so lucky-- close to 300 times lucky (he lost less than a dozen fights in 299 outings on record). He must have been very very good. But, it must also be added that, by several accounts, he was not all that much of a clean fighter.I know too that he fought with only one food eye for most of his career. He lost the title to Tiger Flowers (they fought twice and Greb lost both) when the sight of his good eye was beginning to also fail.He died at age 32 from shock during an operation to remove a cataract from one eye and a fractured bone from his nose.

[SnoopySmurf]

Even though I thought Hagler beat Sugar Ray, I still say Speed beats Power. And Greb had speed and was akward, from the looks of the footage. Never seen him fight.

I wouldn't say Greb could beat Hagler....but let's just say that if we saw a footage of Joe Calzaghe shadow boxing vs a footage of Lacy, we'd all think that Lacy would kill him. Just saying.

[K-DOGG]

You guys are killing me with your post-modernistic bull****. We're better than they were, we've advanced, look what we can do now that those neanderthals coudn't, we've don't have to get off our asses to change the channel, those guys didn't even have black and white TV back then, etc. Yeah, yeah, yeah....whatever. There is nothing on your sides concerning the "evolution" of the sport...no proof, none....meaning, we'll never know if one of today's fighters would beat one of yesterdays.

You see guys now who are sooo lauded over, so praised, who have their own agent or PR firm backing them and making them out to be some sort of "god" and then you build them an alter and say they can beat "this old fighter" because there's no video evidence of how good he supposedly was.....and you know you can't trust the reporters who wrote about them.....as if yoiu can trust the promoters and matchmakers of today! I mean Larry Merchant or Jim Lampley or Al Bernstein or Steve Albert would NEVER over-hype a fighter who is fighting for their network(s).

No, there isn't any video of Greb....and I suppose the fact that he fought damn near 300 fights by the time he was 26, more than half with one eye, and won all but a handful means nothing. Oh, right, it means all of the fighters back then were **** compared to today's ring geniuses...I forgot.

Ignorance & post-modern prejudice, what a marriage.





btw....grayfist, Dr Filth, & Kid Achilles....great posts.